ck1

Dave,

CM made a good point - if you have questions about a particular published study, you can always contact the authors with your questions. Most papers include email contact info for the lead author. And most scientists are happy to talk about their work.

Also, glad to see that you are still responding on these discussion threads, even if in a limited way.

ericmurphy

No, Dave, it wasn't. Constan Mews cited research that has already passed the gauntlet of the peer review process. The accuracy and reliability of dating techniques such as lake bed varves and radicarbon dating and tree growth rings have been exhaustively validated, and have been so for decades. There simply is no legitimate question as to the accuracy and reliability of these dating techniques. Therefore, the burden now shifts to you to demonstrate that those dates are incorrect. You cannot do so, because you have neither the training, the knowledge, nor the expertise to understand the techniques well enough to find flaws in them (and people who do have the training, the knowledge, and the expertise to do so would have long since done so if there were any flaws).

Questioning settled facts is the unmistakable mark of the dilettante, Dave.

He did. He demonstrated that at a minimum, the earth is at least five times older than Genesis claims it is, and in so doing proved that no global flood could possibly have occurred in that time. Those two interrelated facts obliterate your argument about the historical accuracy of Genesis, Dave. That's all Constant Mews needed to do, and he did it with elegance and grace.
We have done so, Dave, countless times. It's not just one paper. It's literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of papers published over the past century or more. You have been given mountains of data demonstrating the accuracy of radiocarbon, dendrochronology, ice cores, lake varves, etc. We have explained to you the utter impossibility of all these dating techniques being wrong, because they all agree with each other. After a year and a half of having this pounded into your skull, YOU STILL DON'T FREAKING GET IT.

And how is that anyone's fault other than your own?

ck1

Two-faced! Not at all, Dave. One thing is clear -- "creationist scientists" do not seem to operate under the same rules as mainstream scientists:

--How long have we been mentioning those "baboon dogs" which are still being described, without correction, on AIG?

--Why did the Weiland article on fused chromosomes disappear without a published correction?

--Why have you not taken up Voxrat on his challenge to find one AIG article with no scientific inaccuracies?

BWE

Dave is already engaged on that topic. We'll see how he does.

Constant Mews

Ah? Where is the Dave-spank occurring?

ck1

BWE has used this issue - that creationist scientists lie on a regular basis - as a theme in his "debatish" with Dave on the Richard Dawkins site.

Mike PSS

Peer Review. Step... ummmm... 20 on the road to submitting a paper.

Step 1 - concept
Step 2 - is the concept rational?
Step 3 - what are the conceptual basics?
Step 4 - what is unique about the concept?
Step 5 - IMPORTANT!! Literature search for anyone else that may have studied this concept. STOP if this concept is NOT new.
Step 6 - Establish experimental framework to study concept.
Step 7 - Learn and understand linked or parallel studies that support the concept.
Step 8 - FUNDING!! Beg, borrow, steal to get funds to support experimentation to collect data about the concept.
Step 9 - Establish research team and location to spend the funds (i.e. run the experiment.
Step 10 - Collect the data.
Step 11 - First data review with original experiment team.
Step 12 - Second data review with immediate peers and/or fund supporters.
Step 13 - First conclusions reviewed with experimental team.
Step 14 - Second conclusions reviewed with peers and/or fund supporters. Initial paper draft prepared.
Step 15 - Initial project review to establish whether further work is needed to support concept (theoretical, experimental or analytical).
Step 16 - Final project review with team and fund supporter.
Step 17 - Final paper draft prepared.
Step 18 - Paper review by all team and fund supporters.
Step 19 - Paper submitted to Journal.
Step 20 - Journal Peer Review

So, by the time a scientific concept makes it into a peer review process it probably has been reviewed extensively by dozens of other interested parties.

What does this say about your dendro- or lake varve objections Dave? Do you really think that these processes are not fully considered and evaluated before the work is submitted for peer review?

Hmmmm.....?

ck1

Interesting.

I would add 18b - give paper to colleague not involved in the project for evaluation/comment.

I am surprised to see "fund supporters" so prominently involved in data development/review. What field are you in?

But I agree that a lot of review is done before the paper is ever submitted.

Steviepinhead

OUtstanding job, CM! And executed, as eric noted, with considerable grace and reserve.

deadman:
Yo! "We" resemble that remark. Please don't confuse whatever cognitive difficulties that *a person who recently returned from our neighbor to the south* may be experiencing with pinheadedness, a well-understood (but, alas, proprietary) disorder of an entirely different kind.

Thanks!

Steve_F

To be perfectly honest, I don't think that this is a particularly compelling line of argument. I've read plenty of papers that, quite frankly, appear to have been pulled out of someone's ass. You are placing peer review up onto a pedestal where it doesn't belong; it is an imperfect process that allows shoddy work to slip by. Dave's arguments are key here, not referrals to the the higher authority of peer review.